Berakhot 42

דגורם ברכה לעצמו

as it causes a blessing itself. It is so significant, that one recites a blessing over it together with other blessings like kiddush and havdala, even though he does not particularly want to drink it. During a meal too, a blessing is recited over the wine and it is not exempted by the blessing over the bread.

רב הונא אכל תליסר ריפתי בני תלתא תלתא בקבא ולא בריך אמר ליה רב נחמן עדי כפנא אלא כל שאחרים קובעים עליו סעודה צריך לברך

As the Gemara mentioned bread that comes as dessert, it now relates that Rav Huna ate thirteen substantially sized, sweetened loaves, three loaves per kav of flour, and he did not recite Grace after Meals because they were not genuine bread. Rav Naḥman said to him: That is hunger. One does not typically eat that much merely as dessert. Rather, over anything which is substantial enough to satiate and others base a meal upon it, one must recite Grace after Meals.

רב יהודה הוה עסיק ליה לבריה בי רב יהודה בר חביבא אייתו לקמייהו פת הבאה בכסנין כי אתא שמעינהו דקא מברכי המוציא אמר להו מאי ציצי דקא שמענא דילמא המוציא לחם מן הארץ קא מברכיתו אמרי ליה אין דתניא רבי מונא אמר משום רבי יהודה פת הבאה בכסנין מברכין עליה המוציא ואמר שמואל הלכה כרבי מונא

The Gemara also relates: Rav Yehuda was engaged in preparations for his son’s wedding at the house of Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva when they brought bread that comes as dessert before them. When it arrived, he heard them reciting: Who brings forth bread from the earth. He said to them: What is this tzitzi sound that I hear? Perhaps you are reciting: Who brings forth bread from the earth? They said to him: Yes, indeed, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Over bread that comes as dessert, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona.

אמר להו אין הלכה כרבי מונא אתמר אמרי ליה והא מר הוא דאמר משמיה דשמואל לחמניות מערבין בהן ומברכין עליהן המוציא שאני התם דקבע סעודתיה עלייהו אבל היכא דלא קבע סעודתיה עלייהו לא

Rav Yehuda said to them: You are mistaken. Actually, it was stated that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona. They said to him: But aren’t you, Master, the one who said in the name of Shmuel with regard to wafers: One may establish an eiruv, the joining of courtyards, to permit carrying in a shared courtyard and the joining of cooked foods, to permit cooking on a festival for Shabbat, with them and recite over them: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Why is that the blessing over those wafers? They too are sweetened bread that comes as dessert. He answered them: It is different there as he based his meal upon them, but here, where one did not base his meal upon them, no, he does not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth.

רב פפא איקלע לבי רב הונא בריה דרב נתן בתר דגמר סעודתייהו אייתו לקמייהו מידי למיכל שקל רב פפא וקא אכיל אמרי ליה לא סבר לה מר גמר אסור מלאכול אמר להו סלק אתמר

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa happened to come to the house of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan. After they finished their meal, they brought before them something to eat. Rav Pappa took this food item and ate it without reciting a blessing. They said to him: Do you, Master, not hold that once one finished his meal he is forbidden to eat again without reciting a blessing? He said to them that in the correct version of that halakha, it is stated: Removed. One need recite a second blessing only when eating after the table was removed from before him.

רבא ורבי זירא איקלעו לבי ריש גלותא לבתר דסליקו תכא מקמייהו שדרו להו ריסתנא מבי ריש גלותא רבא אכיל ורבי זירא לא אכיל אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר סלק אסור מלאכול אמר ליה אנן אתכא דריש גלותא סמכינן:

Similarly, the Gemara relates: Rava and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. After the meal, when they removed the table from before them, a portion [ristena] of food was sent to them from the house of the Exilarch. Rava ate it and Rabbi Zeira did not eat it. Rabbi Zeira said to Rava: Do you, Master, not hold that once the table was removed, he is forbidden to eat? Rava said to him: We are dependent upon the table of the Exilarch, and so long as he has not completed his meal, his guests have not completed their meals either.

אמר רב הרגיל בשמן שמן מעכבו אמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב כהנא אמר לן כגון אנן דרגילינן במשחא משחא מעכבא לן ולית הלכתא ככל הני שמעתתא אלא כי הא דאמר רבי חייא בר אשי אמר רב שלש תכיפות הן תכף לסמיכה שחיטה תכף לגאולה תפלה תכף לנטילת ידים ברכה

Rav said: One who is accustomed to applying fragrant oil to his hands after meals, failure to apply that oil delays the end of his meal and he is not considered to have finished his meal and is not required to recite a blessing before continuing to eat. Similarly, Rav Ashi said: When we were in the house of Rav Kahana, he said to us: We, for example, who are accustomed to oil, failure to apply that oil delays the end of the meal for us. Nevertheless, the Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with all of these statements and the end of the meal is not determined by those factors. Rather, it is determined by that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: There are three pairs that immediately follow each other: Immediately following placing hands on the head of a sacrifice, is its slaughter; immediately following the blessing of redemption recited after Shema, is the Amida prayer; and immediately following the ritual washing of the hands after a meal, is the blessing of Grace after Meals.

אמר אביי אף אנו נאמר תכף לתלמידי חכמים ברכה שנאמר ויברכני ה׳ בגללך איבעית אימא מהכא שנאמר ויברך ה׳ את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף:

Abaye said that on a similar note, we too will say: Immediately following the entrance of Torah scholars into a house, a blessing rests upon that house, as it is stated with regard to Laban and Jacob: “The Lord has blessed me because of you” (Genesis 30:27). If you wish, say instead, that the proof is from here, as it is stated: “And it was from when he placed him in charge of his house and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian on account of Joseph” (Genesis 39:5).

מתני׳ ברך על היין שלפני המזון פטר את היין שלאחר המזון ברך על הפרפרת שלפני המזון פטר את הפרפרת שלאחר המזון ברך על הפת פטר את הפרפרת על הפרפרת לא פטר את הפת בית שמאי אומרים אף לא מעשה קדרה

MISHNA: This mishna explains those cases and those circumstances in which blessings recited over particular foods exempt other foods at the meal from the requirement to recite a blessing over them. One who recited a blessing over the wine that one drank before the meal, with that blessing he exempted the wine that he drinks after the meal. Similarly, one who recited a blessing over the appetizers that one ate before the meal, with that blessing he exempted the appetizers that he eats after the meal. One who recited a blessing over the bread exempted the appetizers, as they are considered secondary to the bread. However, one who recited a blessing over the appetizers did not exempt the bread. Beit Shammai say: The blessing recited over the appetizers did not exempt even a cooked dish that he eats during the meal.

היו יושבין כל אחד מברך לעצמו הסבו אחד מברך לכולן

An additional halakha is cited: If several people were sitting to eat not in the framework of a joint meal, each recites a blessing for himself. If they were reclined on divans to eat, which renders it a joint meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all.

בא להם יין בתוך המזון כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו אחר המזון אחד מברך לכולם והוא אומר על המוגמר ואף על פי שאין מביאין את המוגמר אלא לאחר סעודה:

Additionally: If wine came before them during the meal, each and every diner recites a blessing over the wine for himself. If the wine came after the meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all. And he, who recited the blessing over the wine, also says the blessing over the incense [mugmar], although they only bring the incense to the diners after the meal.

גמ׳ אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s statement that wine that precedes a meal exempts wine that follows a meal, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This halakha was only taught with regard to Shabbat and Festivals, since, because one can continue drinking at his leisure, one bases his meal on the wine. However, during the rest of the days of the year, one who drinks wine at a meal recites a blessing over each and every cup, as his original intention was not to drink a lot.

אתמר נמי אמר רבה בר מרי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים ובשעה שאדם יוצא מבית המרחץ ובשעת הקזת דם הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס

It was also stated: Rabba bar Mari said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This was only taught in the mishna with regard to Shabbat and Festivals, and when a person emerges tired from the bathhouse, and wishes to eat and rest, and during bloodletting, after which one tends to drink a lot, since on these occasions one typically bases his meal on wine. However, during the rest of the days of the year, one who drinks wine at a meal recites a blessing over each and every cup.

רבה בר מרי איקלע לבי רבא בחול חזייה דבריך לפני המזון והדר בריך לאחר המזון אמר ליה יישר וכן אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי

The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Mari happened to come to the house of Rava during the week. He saw him recite a blessing over wine before the meal, and again recite a blessing on the wine after the meal. He said to him: Well done. And so too, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that this was proper conduct.

רב יצחק בר יוסף איקלע לבי אביי ביום טוב חזייה דבריך אכל כסא וכסא אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה נמלך אנא

The Gemara also relates: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef happened to come to the house of Abaye on a Festival. He saw that he recited a blessing over each and every cup of wine. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Does the Master not hold in accordance with that halakha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that one blessing is sufficient? Abaye said to him: My original intention was not to base my meal upon wine and with each cup I change my mind and decide to drink it. Even Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would agree that under those circumstances, one must recite a blessing over each and every cup.

איבעיא להו בא להם יין בתוך המזון מהו שיפטור את היין שלאחר המזון אם תימצי לומר ברך על היין שלפני המזון פוטר את היין שלאחר המזון משום דזה לשתות וזה לשתות אבל הכא דזה לשתות וזה לשרות לא או דילמא לא שנא

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If wine came out to them during the meal, what is the halakha with regard to exempting the wine after the meal from a blessing? The dilemma is as follows: If you say: One who recited a blessing over the wine that one drank before the meal, with that blessing he exempted the wine that he drinks after the meal, perhaps that is because the purpose of drinking this, wine before the meal, is to drink, and that, wine after the meal, is to drink for its own sake. However, here, where the purpose of drinking this, the wine after the meal, is to drink and that, the wine during the meal, is to moisten the food and to facilitate its consumption, no. The blessing on one cannot exempt the other. Or perhaps there is no difference, and all drinking is considered the same.

רב אמר פוטר ורב כהנא אמר אינו פוטר רב נחמן אמר פוטר ורב ששת אמר אינו פוטר רב הונא ורב יהודה וכל תלמידי דרב אמרי אינו פוטר איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן בא להם יין בתוך המזון כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו לאחר המזון אחד מברך לכולם אמר ליה הכי קאמר אם לא בא להם יין בתוך המזון אלא לאחר המזון אחד מברך לכולם:

Opinions differed: Rav said: It exempts, and Rav Kahana said: It does not exempt. Rav Naḥman said: It exempts, and Rav Sheshet said: It does not exempt. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda and all the students of Rav said: It does not exempt. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from our mishna: If wine came before them during the meal, each and every diner recites a blessing over the wine for himself. If the wine came after the meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all. Apparently, even though they recited a blessing over wine during the course of the meal, they must recite a blessing over the wine after the meal as well. Rav Naḥman said to him: The mishna says as follows: There are two independent cases. The second case is: If wine did not come before them during the meal, but only after the meal, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all.

ברך על הפת פטר את הפרפרת על הפרפרת לא פטר את הפת בית שמאי אומרים אף לא מעשה קדרה:

We learned in the mishna: One who recited a blessing over the bread exempted the appetizers, as they are considered secondary to the bread. However, one who recited a blessing over the appetizers did not exempt the bread. Beit Shammai say: The blessing recited over the appetizers did not exempt even a cooked dish that he eats during the meal.

איבעיא להו בית שמאי ארישא פליגי או דילמא אסיפא פליגי דקאמר תנא קמא ברך על הפת פטר את הפרפרת וכל שכן מעשה קדרה ואתי בית שמאי למימר לא מיבעיא פרפרת דלא פטרה להו פת אלא אפילו מעשה קדרה נמי לא פטרה או דילמא אסיפא פליגי דקתני ברך על הפרפרת לא פטר את הפת פת הוא דלא פטר אבל מעשה קדרה פטר ואתו בית שמאי למימר ואפילו מעשה קדרה נמי לא פטר

With regard to this case, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do Beit Shammai disagree with the first clause in the mishna or with the latter clause, as it may be explained in both ways? It can be understood that the first tanna says: One who recited a blessing over the bread exempted the appetizers and all the more so it exempted a cooked dish. And Beit Shammai come to say: It goes without saying that the blessing over bread does not exempt appetizers; as the blessing over bread does not even exempt a cooked dish. Or perhaps they disagree with the latter clause, as it was taught: One who recited a blessing over the appetizers did not exempt the bread. By inference, the blessing did not exempt bread, but it did exempt a cooked dish. And Beit Shammai come to say that the blessing over the appetizers did not exempt even a cooked dish.

תיקו:

The Gemara concludes: Let it stand, as this dilemma remains unresolved.

היו יושבין כל אחד ואחד כו׳: הסבו אין לא הסבו לא ורמינהו עשרה שהיו הולכים בדרך אף על פי שכולם אוכלים מככר אחד כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו ישבו לאכול אף על פי שכל אחד ואחד אוכל מככרו אחד מברך לכולם קתני ישבו אף על פי שלא הסבו

The mishna distinguished between a case where several people were sitting to eat, which is not a joint meal, and each and every diner recites a blessing for himself; and a case where they were reclined on divans, which renders it a joint meal, and one recites a blessing on behalf of all of them. The Gemara infers: If they reclined, yes, it is considered a joint meal; if they did not recline, no. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: Ten people who were walking on the road, even if they are all eating from one loaf, each and every one recites a blessing for himself. If they sat to eat, even if each and every one is eating from his own loaf, one recites a blessing on behalf of them all as it is considered a joint meal. In any case, it was taught: If they sat to eat, even though they did not recline. Apparently, sitting together is enough to render it a joint meal and reclining is not required.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כגון דאמרי ניזיל וניכול לחמא בדוך פלן

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With regard to those walking along the road, it was in a case where they said: Let us go and eat in such-and-such a place. Since they designated a specific location to eat together in advance, it is considered a joint meal.

כי נח נפשיה דרב אזלו תלמידיו בתריה כי הדרי אמרי ניזיל וניכול לחמא אנהר דנק בתר דכרכי יתבי וקא מיבעיא להו הסבו דוקא תנן אבל ישבו לא או דילמא כיון דאמרי ניזיל וניכול ריפתא בדוכתא פלניתא כי הסבו דמי לא הוה בידייהו

On a similar note, the Gemara relates: When Rav died, his students went after his casket to the city where he was to be buried. When they returned, they said: Let us go and eat bread on the banks of the Dannak River. After they ate, they sat, and raised a dilemma: Did we learn in the mishna specifically if they reclined, it is considered a joint meal; however, if they merely sat together, no, it is not considered a joint meal? Or perhaps, since they said: Let us go and eat in such-and-such a place, it is considered as if they reclined? It was not within their capability to resolve this dilemma.

קם רב אדא בר אהבה

Rav Adda bar Ahava stood,